The Principle of “Non-self”: Rapid Alternation of “Awareness” and “Awareness of Awareness”

The Watercooler
1

As the core doctrine of Buddhism, “non-self” has always been a perplexing and controversial thesis. This paper develops an original model to reveal the principle of “non-self” on the basis of both the scientific mechanism behind Buddhist meditation and the empirical materials of Theravāda Buddhism.

In “The Science behind Buddhist Meditation”, we proposed that the nature of vipassanā is enhanced awareness induced in meditation (after samādhi), which makes contemplating the five aggregates possible, just like “watching” a slow-motion film.

According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Rupert Gethin, Sue Hamilton and Alexander Wynne, different from the traditional mainstream view that the individual person consists of five ever-changing aggregates, the five aggregates should be regarded as descriptions of the individual’s subjective experience. We further argue that the five aggregates should be viewed directly as a stream of moments of awareness or consciousness.

According to P. A. Payutto, when we regard each aggregate as an “awareness” which is the state of being conscious of something, then contemplating the five aggregates would reveal the existence of “awareness of awareness”. For instance, when one feels happy, one knows that one is happy. (Note that feeling happy is not the same as knowing that one feels happy.)

Furthermore, inspired by Ajahn Brahm’s insightful “fruit salad simile” which describes experiences in Theravāda Buddhist meditation, we develop an original model to interpret “non-self” by introducing “awareness of awareness” out of the framework of the five aggregates: contemplating the five aggregates would discern that “awareness of awareness” arises a moment after each aggregate and they do not appear simultaneously.

Thus, it is clear that the notion that there is a constant entity always there knowing or experiencing all aggregates just results from the alternation of “awareness” (or “aggregates”) and “awareness of awareness”, something that under ordinary conditions happens very quickly. (That’s like a torch spinning so fast that it looks like a solid ring of fire exists.)

This would lead to the insight of “non-self”: no subject (or mental entity) of awareness at all.

At the same time, this model bridges Buddhism and Western philosophy, demonstrating that mental entity does not exist. (The “self” in Buddhism’s “non-self” is actually the “I” in Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am.”)

1 Like
2

Hi,

Some good points here.

Along these lines, studies have shown how the brain actually doesn’t perform multi-tasking, even though we have the illusion that it does.
Rather, it switches rapidly between task-switching.

“The human brain is a remarkable organ with a finite capacity for processing information. While it can switch rapidly between tasks, it cannot truly focus on multiple activities simultaneously. This is because of the concept of attentional capacity—the limited cognitive resources that determine how much information we can process at any given moment.
When individuals attempt to multitask, they are essentially engaging in rapid task-switching.”

Same with the enduring self illusion and the illusion of a continuous awareness/knowing with respect to Dhamma practice, (not equating “mind” in the Teachings to the brain here). It’s all just rapidly changing conditions, even the conditional arising of processes of knowing about prior processes of knowing. This gives the illusion of seamless continuity.

And in Nirodha-Samāpatti it all stops.

3

Anatta has never been a downright denial or refusal of a self. The Buddhadhamma is not about clinging to statements and believing them out of blind faith i.e. ‘there is a self or there is not a self’. Instead, it is about an examining of the relationships between causal (mental and physical phenomenon) and seeing to see how & why something functions or originates.

Using a middle way approach in alignment with the principle of causation, we can see that a sense of self (‘I’, ‘me’, ‘myself’) arises as a result of contact of the 5 Skandhas (form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental abstraction). The sense of ‘I’ is a mental abstraction that the individual of primarily mind, in relation to body, uses to make sense of themselves because of the feeling of being alive and being aware that one is aware (or alive)… of the result of being produced by a procreating male and female pair. This middle way thinking is not clinging to a fixed view of a self or a denial of a self out of blind faith but instead is born of a keen investigation of examining causal relationships in alignment with ehipassiko - when A is in relation with B, C, D, then E is.

Discerning the suchness of mind as compared to mind products (abstractions) is what people are having problems with.

4

Hi,

I don’t see anything in either post that indicates this.

Which is exactly what the studies are pointing to.

Again, this is not to equate science with the Dhamma. but there instances when the former aligns with the latter.

5

I am making a general statement.

6

Sense info must first of all be received and then be processed before the 6 sense-vinnanas can arise. There are no sounds hitting the eardrum, no smells and tastes binding to receptors in nose and mouth. There are no visuals impacting the eye etc. All what we experience via vinnana is already an interpretation of raw sense info.

Sensing is never merely sensing. What we sense is already an interpretation and choice made for us.

Vinnana is not the begin stage of knowing but more like an evolved stage of knowing. It is like it presents an interpretation and also expactation of raw sense info to the mind. It is choosen for us how we experience the world. Vinnana is never merely knowing something. It is much more. It always contains a choice that is subconsciously made, an interpretation, it is a translation as it were of raw sense info. Without all these pre-conscious processes happening, there would be no sense vinnana.

I do not know what is the correct model to understand all. But i incline to a constant present receptivity of mind that precedes all sense moments. Without it there is no sense vinnana possible. This receptivity is a much more subtle form of knowing. Here is nothing yet interpreted. Its function is merely to receive info and know. But not know like in sense vinnana knows.

What great teachers illustrate is that an element of knowing is always present even when all 6 vinnanas cease. Vinnana is not really what knows, but a certain kind of knowing. Not an awareness or bare receptivity but a more developed stage of knowing and therefor also a more coarses one. The basic form of knowing is an undifferentiated kind of knowing inseperable from emptiness.

I also believe that at this level there are no feelings and perceptions , but there is still a knowing ability, inseperable from the stilling of all formations.

7

Thanks a lot, Jasudho!

This is interesting, helpful and insightful!

1 Like
8

Yes, I believe this is true. However Descartes would not be your link, on the contrary your proposed system would be strikingly similar to the Idealism of Berkeley and Hegel. Very promising and interesting !

At the same time, putting the 5 aggregates into relation will be something very hard to accomplish in the thoroughly dogmatic Buddhist world.

Of course in such as the proposed system, even an object like the brain is reduced to a phenomenon of consciousness from which no conclusions can be drawn about consciousness itself. The fact of the existence of consciousness remains a last truth of which no further knowledge is possible.

9

Hi,

Kind of a strong categorical statement … no further knowledge is possible?

That doesn’t mean it will be completely understood in a scientific sense. We agree it hasn’t even been defined yet!

Fortunately, this is not necessary for our Dhamma practice.

At the same time, when we investigate, everything in experience is ultimately beyond complete explanation and definition.
Even a head of lettuce. :slightly_smiling_face:

10

Yes and yes. But I did not have Dhamma in mind, only the logical consequences of the abolition of the subject (or in everyday language, the “I”).

All logical thinking, all objective knowledge is still subjective in that it happens as an act of a subject.

If you consider subject and subjective experience as mere phenomena conditioned by consciousness per se, it follows that any subjective act, including logical and scientific reasoning, is itself subject to the condition and therefore not able to transcend itself.

11

Thanks a lot, Malunkyaputta!

Does mental entity exist?

This has been a fundamental problem in Western philosophy for hundreds of years. The most famous long standing controversy is Descartes’ “Cogito, ergo sum” versus Hume’s “Bundle theory”.

Descartes argued that “I think, therefore I am.”, but he didn’t realize that mental entity is just the illusion emerges out of the rapid alternation of “awareness” and “awareness of awareness”.

Hume proposed “Bundle theory”, but he didn’t explain why there is only stream of perceptions and given that there is no self, why there is the illusion of self and how it arises.

This model ends their controversy.

12

When you talk about the “scientific mechanism” behind Buddhist meditation, you incorrectly represent Buddhist teachings as doing the similar job as science and wrongly generalize knowledge based on a civilizational context.
Scientific means verifiable, professional, substantiated. But science does not claim to possess true/absolute knowledge (it is built on overturning its theories and paradigms), nor to set far reaching goals. On the contrary, you cannot provide objective evidence of achievements in meditation, nor conduct an experiment to be up to something, moreover, this is absolutely have nothing to do with the goals of the practice.
Empiricism is the absolutization of sensory knowledge, denying the rational and mystical, so that materials can not be named as belonging to Theravada Buddhism by definition.

The speed of the movie depends on how much you can remember, if you are attentive, the movie speeds up. The movie is an image of illusion and has nothing to do with the experience of meditation, which is aimed at awakening.

The five aggregates cannot be a description of the individual, just as the general cannot define the particular.

In order for you to be “awareness about awareness”, it must exist as some kind of evaluation system. Let’s say: “now my awareness has become more intense.” Or that it sometimes appears, sometimes disappears. If awareness sometimes appears, sometimes disappears, and alternation exists, but it is beyond your control then should this be considered as true reality?

The meaning you have given is not attributed to Descartes. Decarts sought to get rid of the appearance of a logical conclusion, while self-evidence, direct insight into the asserted truth, is implied, “every time I pronounce the words I am, I exist or perceive this statement with my mind, it will necessarily be true”.
And this is a model for how the structure of language and clichés push us to conclusions that have nothing to do with reality.

1 Like
13

Hi Mahanaga,

Welcome to the D&D forum! We hope you enjoy the various resources, FAQs, and previous threads. You can use the search function for topics and keywords you are interested in. Forum guidelines are here: Forum Guidelines. May some of these resources be of assistance along the path.

If you have any questions or need further clarification regarding anything, feel free to contact the moderators by including @moderators in your post or a PM.

Regards,
Alex (on behalf of the moderators)

14

Dear Alex and the moderators,
I am very happy to join this web-site. Thank you for wonderful hospitality.
I am looking forward to continued cooperation.
Sadhu!